- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1274 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 582 OF 2021 IN CRL.RP No. 1274/2022: BETWEEN: SALMAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O REHAMAN, CARPENTER, R/O NEAR HAJI MAJID, HAYEE NAGAR, HASSAN-577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR N. R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY CHIKMAGALUR TOWN POLICE, REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.49/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED IN Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 C.C.NO.634/2014 DATED 02.03.2016 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHIKKAMAGALURU. IN CRL.RP NO. 582/2021 BETWEEN: 1. MUJAHID, S/O KHALEEMULLA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, VEGETABLE MERCHANT, R/O NEAR HAJI MAJID HAYEE NAGAR, HASSAN-577201. 2. IBRAHIM, S/O KHALEEMULLA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, MECHANIC, R/O KALASAPURA POST, CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DIST, PIN-577148. 3. ASEEF, S/O JABEEULLA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, HALENAHALLI, CHIKMAGALUR TALUK, PIN-577101. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY CHIKMAGALUR TOWN POLICE, REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.49/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.634/2014 DATED 02.03.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHIKKAMAGALURU. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Ravikumar N.R., learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons who have suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Public Property Act and sentenced as under: The accused No. 1 to 4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 332 r/w. section 34 of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 IPC and they shall also liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused No. 1 to 4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w. section 34 of IPC and they shall also liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused No. 1 to 4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 427 r/w. section 34 of IPC and they shall also liable to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused No. 1 to 4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Public Property Act, 1981 and they shall also liable to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial of this case, is ordered to be set off, as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.” 3. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the accused persons before the District Court in Crl.A. No. 49/2016. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter accused persons are before this Court. 4. Sri. Ravikumar N.R., learned counsel for the revision petitioners with vehemence would contend that petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated by the Police in order to pacify the public wrath that got nurtured on account of the incident which occurred on 27.03.2014 at about 07.00 p.m. near the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 Government Hospital, Chikkamagaluru, whereunder a patient succumbed to the disease and the dependents of the patient picked up the quarrel with the Doctor and Nurse and a group of people manhandled the Doctor and the Nurse. Public demanded justice. Therefore in order to pacify the situation, Police have falsely implicated the petitioners in the case who were found near the Government Hospital consuming tender coconut and juice who are innocent persons. 5. Alternatively, Sri. Ravikumar N.R., learned counsel for revision petitioners would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, since the petitioners are first time offenders, the sentence of imprisonment of two years maximum awarded punishable for the offence under Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Public Property Act and for offence under Sections 332, 353 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the submissions made on behalf of revision petitioners, contending that revision petitioners were apprehended by the Police based on the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The petitioners have been identified before the Court by the witnesses who did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the petitioners. Therefore, based on the overwhelming material evidence placed on record, the conviction has been recorded which requires no interference by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. He would further contend that showing any lenience to persons like revision petitioners would send a wrong message to the society especially for loss of life beyond the control of a Doctor, the dependents of the patient are indulging in attacking the Doctor and the Nurse and other paramedical sub-staff repeatedly and therefore alternate submission is to be rejected. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material evidence on record, it is noticed that an ugly incident occurred on 27.03.2014 at about 06.30 p.m. at M.G. Hospital (Government) Chikkamagaluru. Smt. Zahirabi was admitted to the Hospital. Despite best treatment she could not survive. On hearing the news, relatives of Smt. Zahirabi, including the revision petitioners, picked up the quarrel with the Doctor, Nurse and other paramedical staff and accused No. 1 is said to have assaulted the complainant with an iron foot stand on his back and chest. Accused No. 4 assaulted Nurse – Smt. Manjula with hands on her face and right leg and accused No. 2 assaulted Sri. Rajendra with hands on his face and caused injuries. Apart from causing physical injuries to C.W.1 to C.W.3, accused persons have also broken the window glasses of the hospital by pelting the stone and thereby caused loss to the public property. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 9. On receipt of the complaint, jurisdictional Police registered the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. 10. Learned Trial Magistrate, after securing the presence of the accused persons, framed the charges. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 11. C.W.1 to C.W.3 supported the case of the prosecution in toto and so also other material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. After due trial, statement of the accused was recorded by the Trial Magistrate as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein accused persons denied all the circumstances which were culled out by the prosecution evidence and put across to the accused persons. 12. Pertinently accused persons did not place their version about the incident or any evidence on their behalf. Thereafter learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 documentary evidence on record noted that C.W.1 to C.W.3 who are examined as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity so as to partially implicate the accused persons in the incident and rightly convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 13. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, in the light of the grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioners, re-appreciated the material evidence on record and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. 14. This Court, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects and the theory that is put forward on behalf of the accused that they were innocent and they had gone near the hospital for consuming tender coconut and juice and having not been probabalised by placing any material on record. Since the theory of false implication is not - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 established, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference whatsoever, that too in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly conviction of the revision petitioners is maintained. 15. Having said thus, it is to be noted that the role playable by the Court while passing an order of conviction is altogether different from the role that is to be played while passing the appropriate sentence in a given case. 16. Sentencing policy encompasses itself that the Trial Judge should bear in mind that the crime must be hated and not the criminal. 17. It is one of the cardinal principles of the criminal jurisprudence and sentencing policy that every sinner has a future. Therefore, the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is to be applied in a given case. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 18. In the case on hand, such a benefit was not accorded to the accused persons by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing the sentence as referred to supra. Discussion made before passing the sentence, does not even mention about extending the benefit of benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act as could be seen from internal page No. 25 of the judgment of the learned Trial Magistrate. 19. As an Appellate Judge, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court was duty bound to consider what is the appropriate sentence in a matter of this nature. Unfortunately in a casual manner, learned Judge of the First Appellate Court stated that the offence proved against the accused is serious in nature and therefore, accused are not entitled for the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 20. Both the Courts failed to note that in respect of proved offence which is punishable upto 7 years, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act would be applicable. There must be a discussion as to how and why such benefit cannot be accorded to an accused who has been convicted in a criminal case. 21. However, calling for report from the Probation Officer at this distance of time for an incident which occurred in the year 2014 is nothing but a futile exercise. 22. Suffice to say that petitioners are the first time offenders and they did not have any criminal antecedents. As such, the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court, if modified by directing the petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for the day, till the raising of the Court, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- payable by each of the accused in respect of all the proved offences, portion of which can be paid as compensation to P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 and some amount towards the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 defraying expenses of the State ends of justice would be met. 23. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion the following order is passed. i) Revision Petitions are allowed in part while maintaining the conviction of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Public Property Act. ii) Sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the raising of the Court and also by directing each of the accused to pay enhanced fine amount Rs.25,000/- on or before 30.04.2026. iii) On receipt of the enhanced fine amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- each is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 under due identification under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19366 CRL.RP No. 1274 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 582 of 2021 iv) Balance amount of Rs.40,000/- and the amount of fine already imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate shall be utilized towards the defraying expenses of the State, as there is a damage to the hospital as well. v) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount on or before 30.04.2026, the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, stands restored automatically. The Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction order. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE LRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 82